Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the middle - families with kids who want good schools and some elbow room, will always want a single family detached home in the suburbs.
I have kids and I'm definitely not one of those. I know that I'm not alone as well. This statement is flat out untrue. It only appears that way because of the survivorship bias from not building family friend urban environments in most American cities. We've got some friends raising a family in downtown Philly. I've got a cousin raising a family in a high rise in Latin America. And I've got lots of friends raising families in brownstones and condos in Brookline (MA).
What traits make an urban environment family friendly?
* Large affordable housing units. Our friends in Philly live in a 20yo 2500sf townhome that cost $700k. My cousin lives in a 10yo 2500sf condo that cost $250k.
* Good schools. Ok so Austin has good schools downtown but most cities don't.
* Family activities. Parks, stores, religion, restaurants, etc all nearby need to be family friendly. Strip clubs, bars, etc do not.
I haven't experienced the problems mentioned with high density housing. Even my friend in NYC doesn't have that problem. Those problems can all be solved. My friend lives in a coop for example. Big buildings made of concrete with spray foam insulation between units and tall ceilings. Floorplans that don't accomodate singles. My grandmother's apartment consisted of only 2500sf units, each with 5 bedrooms with one unit on each half of the building so only floors/ceilings are shared. Common courtyard with swimming pool and playground.
There's not enough discussion about why SFHs suck. Here's some reasons:
* They're lonely. High density housing not only provides access to bad neighbors but also good ones. SFHs are isolating. There are fewer friends nearby and you have to work harder to meet them in general.
* They're expensive. At least in principle, land is scarce and thus more expensive. At least up to about 10 stories urban housing should be cheaper.
* They're old. SFHs are mostly old and old homes suck time and life from people. They cause great recessions, bankrupt people, and ruin marriages. The only way to get a new SFH is to tear down an existing one.
* They're boring. SFHs for the most part come in one style - traditional. Big buildings are always architect designed. Also, SFH proponents typically want to be the last person to move into a neighborhood. They hate change. Cities are full of energy - new stores, trends, etc.
* They're bad for the environment. Lots of land needs to be developed for SFHs. People drive long distances for them. HVAC is less efficient. Lawns have to be watered. SFHs are an urban planning nightmare.
So the facts seem to suggest that families are moving to the burbs to keep the SFH dream alive in an environment they feel comfy with. Urban, hipster, cool boomers, and whoever else is currently without children are taking over the heart of Austin - is this really a negative?
It would be a disaster, for multiple reasons. But here are two:
1. Because of Texas's school governance and financing, the local school boards (AISD in this case) will find diminishing support for providing adequate resources. Just the past year, we saw the first AISD bonds in memory rejected. Diminish the number of voters with children and it will only become worse. How is that bad? Well, given the size of AISD, there will always be some number of children within the district, no matter how childless the city becomes. What you will wind up with, is a low end cohort, and a high end cohort - sort of a "dumbbell" effect. The high end will attend private schools as AISD becomes an inattractive option. The low end will not have an option. Unfortunately, high end neighborhoods are cheaper to educate - larger schools, economies of scale, lower remedial courses required. Today, they effectively "subsidize" kids with higher needs. As you lose these high end kids to private schools, you lose the attendance credit AND money - money today which subsidizes the lower end kids. A gradual circling of the drain.
2. It would worsen the self selection that already has made American politics a toxic swamp. Since there is no regional governance to look at things from a broader perspective, you will wind up with a Balkanized political structure. Austin will even worsen the self-righteousness as it become more homogeneous. And as families reject living in Austin, they will become more rigid and unwilling to compromise. One can only be lectured for so long about the evilness of their choices. So you wind up with no one but Austin and the current cities in Cap Metro. You wind up with no support inside the city for anything to help with traffic from the suburbs - because people shouldn't live there anyway, n'est-ce pas?
Utter disaster. Unfortunately, as I said before, there are wayyyyyy too many today that see these things as features, and not bugs.
I have kids and I'm definitely not one of those. I know that I'm not alone as well. This statement is flat out untrue. It only appears that way because of the survivorship bias from not building family friend urban environments in most American cities. We've got some friends raising a family in downtown Philly. I've got a cousin raising a family in a high rise in Latin America. And I've got lots of friends raising families in brownstones and condos in Brookline (MA).
What traits make an urban environment family friendly?
* Large affordable housing units. Our friends in Philly live in a 20yo 2500sf townhome that cost $700k. My cousin lives in a 10yo 2500sf condo that cost $250k.
* Good schools. Ok so Austin has good schools downtown but most cities don't.
* Family activities. Parks, stores, religion, restaurants, etc all nearby need to be family friendly. Strip clubs, bars, etc do not.
I haven't experienced the problems mentioned with high density housing. Even my friend in NYC doesn't have that problem. Those problems can all be solved. My friend lives in a coop for example. Big buildings made of concrete with spray foam insulation between units and tall ceilings. Floorplans that don't accomodate singles. My grandmother's apartment consisted of only 2500sf units, each with 5 bedrooms with one unit on each half of the building so only floors/ceilings are shared. Common courtyard with swimming pool and playground.
There's not enough discussion about why SFHs suck. Here's some reasons:
* They're lonely. High density housing not only provides access to bad neighbors but also good ones. SFHs are isolating. There are fewer friends nearby and you have to work harder to meet them in general.
* They're expensive. At least in principle, land is scarce and thus more expensive. At least up to about 10 stories urban housing should be cheaper.
* They're old. SFHs are mostly old and old homes suck time and life from people. They cause great recessions, bankrupt people, and ruin marriages. The only way to get a new SFH is to tear down an existing one.
* They're boring. SFHs for the most part come in one style - traditional. Big buildings are always architect designed. Also, SFH proponents typically want to be the last person to move into a neighborhood. They hate change. Cities are full of energy - new stores, trends, etc.
* They're bad for the environment. Lots of land needs to be developed for SFHs. People drive long distances for them. HVAC is less efficient. Lawns have to be watered. SFHs are an urban planning nightmare.
Okay, I'm going to address your diatribe against SFHs piece by piece:
They're lonely. SFH eighborhoods provide access to both bad and good neighbors, just like you say high density housing does. They also encourage kids to play together outside; they encourage neighborhood BBQ's; they encourage meeting (in some neighborhoods) at the community pool; they encourage neighborhood block parties. It's no more difficult to meet your neighbors in a single family neighborhood than in a high density neighborhood, and in some cases easier because you don't feel forced to live in close proximity to other people and thus you're more likely to reach out.
They're expensive. If this were the case, then the whole argument of making Central Austin more affordable with high density housing so people don't have to move out to the "more affordable" SFH neighborhoods falls flat on its face, because those SFH neighborhoods would be MORE expensive than Central Austin, whether SFH's or downtown condos. Not the case.
They're old. And this is a problem why? Want to back up your claim that because your preference is for new shiny bells and whistles older housing stock isn't just as livable as new (besides being better built, in many cases, than new). Your claim regarding recessions, marraiges, etc., is so laughably personal bias I'm not even going to ask you to back it up because you can't. Lots of people would pay their eye teeth for older homes that haven't been messed with too much that can be restored to the way they were originally - there's a high end market for that, in fact. By the way ALL housing demands time and attention, no matter what the age. It's just the way life is.
They're boring. Only to someone who is (a) easily bored and (b) unable to detect nuances in period styles. And you think most "modern" homes aren't built along the same general lines that are popular in this time period? Especially condos? Really? What planet are you living on, anyway?
They're bad for the environment. So are huge buildings that block out the sun, create lots of concrete, pave over the earth in huge swaths of concrete and roadways replacing the green lawns and trees that clean our air, impact the temperature dramatically, and a whole host of other environmental impacts. Bottom line, too many people are bad for the environment.
What traits make an urban environment family friendly?
* Large affordable housing units. Our friends in Philly live in a 20yo 2500sf townhome that cost $700k. My cousin lives in a 10yo 2500sf condo that cost $250k.
You think $700k for 2500sf is affordable?
There's not enough discussion about why SFHs suck. Here's some reasons:
* They're lonely. High density housing not only provides access to bad neighbors but also good ones. SFHs are isolating. There are fewer friends nearby and you have to work harder to meet them in general. Possibly. I think this point can be debated whether it is due to neighborhood design or cultural norms where one decides to live. My SFH on a double lot in small town America comes with neighbors that I know intimately and care for deeply
* They're expensive. At least in principle, land is scarce and thus more expensive. At least up to about 10 stories urban housing should be cheaper. Gov't regulatory controls and "safety requirements" often make this unfortunately untrue. Market demand also makes the price per sf at the retail end remain high in spite of lower cost to build.
* They're old. SFHs are mostly old and old homes suck time and life from people. They cause great recessions, bankrupt people, and ruin marriages. The only way to get a new SFH is to tear down an existing one. Debatable. I'd like to see an average age of homes currently occupied in metro area. With the growth and influx of upper middle to higher income families, this may not hold true in the Austin market as a generality.
* They're boring. SFHs for the most part come in one style - traditional. Big buildings are always architect designed. Also, SFH proponents typically want to be the last person to move into a neighborhood. They hate change. Cities are full of energy - new stores, trends, etc. Boring is more affordable, a point you already made as a requirement for "family friendly" when applied to MFH - so same applies to SFH. Mass produced developments are more affordable and drive the consumer to accept the current offerings.
* They're bad for the environment. Lots of land needs to be developed for SFHs. People drive long distances for them. HVAC is less efficient. Lawns have to be watered. SFHs are an urban planning nightmare.
Agreed. Point is overruled by affordable and available in the minds of most consumers.
In the end, I don't entirely disagree with some of your points. I don't think this is necessarily something that "If you build it, they will come." If affordable, and large enough, private enough, housing can be provided in areas with access to family friendly amenities and activities, maybe the market would swing. Based on the responses here, it still seems like SFH has a pretty strong hold on the market for the foreseeable future. Particularly so when your examples of "affordable" are still higher priced than comparable SFH in the burbs.
Last edited by Rynldsbr; 07-30-2014 at 10:51 AM..
Reason: Format
I have kids and I'm definitely not one of those. I know that I'm not alone as well. This statement is flat out untrue. It only appears that way because of the survivorship bias from not building family friend urban environments in most American cities. We've got some friends raising a family in downtown Philly. I've got a cousin raising a family in a high rise in Latin America. And I've got lots of friends raising families in brownstones and condos in Brookline (MA).
What traits make an urban environment family friendly?
* Large affordable housing units. Our friends in Philly live in a 20yo 2500sf townhome that cost $700k. My cousin lives in a 10yo 2500sf condo that cost $250k.
* Good schools. Ok so Austin has good schools downtown but most cities don't.
* Family activities. Parks, stores, religion, restaurants, etc all nearby need to be family friendly. Strip clubs, bars, etc do not.
I haven't experienced the problems mentioned with high density housing. Even my friend in NYC doesn't have that problem. Those problems can all be solved. My friend lives in a coop for example. Big buildings made of concrete with spray foam insulation between units and tall ceilings. Floorplans that don't accomodate singles. My grandmother's apartment consisted of only 2500sf units, each with 5 bedrooms with one unit on each half of the building so only floors/ceilings are shared. Common courtyard with swimming pool and playground.
There's not enough discussion about why SFHs suck. Here's some reasons:
* They're lonely. High density housing not only provides access to bad neighbors but also good ones. SFHs are isolating. There are fewer friends nearby and you have to work harder to meet them in general.
* They're expensive. At least in principle, land is scarce and thus more expensive. At least up to about 10 stories urban housing should be cheaper.
* They're old. SFHs are mostly old and old homes suck time and life from people. They cause great recessions, bankrupt people, and ruin marriages. The only way to get a new SFH is to tear down an existing one.
* They're boring. SFHs for the most part come in one style - traditional. Big buildings are always architect designed. Also, SFH proponents typically want to be the last person to move into a neighborhood. They hate change. Cities are full of energy - new stores, trends, etc.
* They're bad for the environment. Lots of land needs to be developed for SFHs. People drive long distances for them. HVAC is less efficient. Lawns have to be watered. SFHs are an urban planning nightmare.
Many of the AISD schools that serve downtown and central aren't that spectacular past the elementary level.
The assertion that SFHs are old doesn't really apply to Austin and the suburban cities, which still have new construction by the bunches.
Actually, I couldn't have been any more "lonely" in my urban apartment, despite all the shared walls and having to deal with people making noise above, below, and both sides. I will NEVER endure that again.
The urban dwellings are kinda boring as well, literally copied from the same modernist boiler plate plan with the exception of finishes here and there. I see few architecturally amazing structures here.
That being said, I'm not gonna say that something "sucks". You like what you like, I like what I like. Urban living ain't for me and I'm fine with that. Coming from NYC, that might be your thing, but for people like my husband, who has always lived in a house, there's no way he's going to BUY an apartment/row/townhouse here.
Downtown Austin does not, generally speaking, have good schools. That's the problem I see with buying a SFH or even a condo or townhome in the trendy downtown neighborhoods now--the only central Austin 'hoods with halfway decent schools that I know of are Crestview, Allandale, and Tarrytown. Northwest Hills has great schools, but that's not downtown Austin. Pease Elementary is awesome, but it is a small school that is almost 100% transfer. There are 2 classes per grade in that school, so getting in there is certainly not guaranteed.
In addition to our house in Quail Creek, my husband and I own a home in the older section of houses across Berkman from Mueller. That house is appreciating in value like crazy. We considered remodeling it extensively and living there, but the schools it tracked to were terrible. They seemed unlikely to improve to acceptable levels in the time frame necessary for my daughter's entrance into kindergarten. Quail Creek is suddenly (hilariously) becoming "hot" now, and it's schools are unattendable as well. Who's moving in these areas? Has to be either DINKs or couples with the extra income to afford private schools.
It would be a disaster, for multiple reasons. But here are two:
1. Because of Texas's school governance and financing, the local school boards (AISD in this case) will find diminishing support for providing adequate resources. Just the past year, we saw the first AISD bonds in memory rejected. Diminish the number of voters with children and it will only become worse. How is that bad? Well, given the size of AISD, there will always be some number of children within the district, no matter how childless the city becomes. What you will wind up with, is a low end cohort, and a high end cohort - sort of a "dumbbell" effect. The high end will attend private schools as AISD becomes an inattractive option. The low end will not have an option. Unfortunately, high end neighborhoods are cheaper to educate - larger schools, economies of scale, lower remedial courses required. Today, they effectively "subsidize" kids with higher needs. As you lose these high end kids to private schools, you lose the attendance credit AND money - money today which subsidizes the lower end kids. A gradual circling of the drain.
2. It would worsen the self selection that already has made American politics a toxic swamp. Since there is no regional governance to look at things from a broader perspective, you will wind up with a Balkanized political structure. Austin will even worsen the self-righteousness as it become more homogeneous. And as families reject living in Austin, they will become more rigid and unwilling to compromise. One can only be lectured for so long about the evilness of their choices. So you wind up with no one but Austin and the current cities in Cap Metro. You wind up with no support inside the city for anything to help with traffic from the suburbs - because people shouldn't live there anyway, n'est-ce pas?
Utter disaster. Unfortunately, as I said before, there are wayyyyyy too many today that see these things as features, and not bugs.
And Austin isn't unique in that..they are just late to the game that has been played in many of the new urbanized cities across the US.
People shouldn't think that they can escape that. That is how sleepy cities evolve and what they turn into.
The movement is called the re-urbanization of America.
And Austin isn't unique in that..they are just late to the game that has been played in many of the new urbanized cities across the US.
People shouldn't think that they can escape that. That is how sleepy cities evolve and what they turn into.
The movement is called the re-urbanization of America.
But this is Austin. Can't we figure out a better way to do it that doesn't make our city a copy of every other city out there just because people move here and want to turn it into wherever they came from? Or because we are too lazy to figure out a better way that's more appropriate to Austin?
Downtown Austin does not, generally speaking, have good schools. That's the problem I see with buying a SFH or even a condo or townhome in the trendy downtown neighborhoods now--the only central Austin 'hoods with halfway decent schools that I know of are Crestview, Allandale, and Tarrytown. Northwest Hills has great schools, but that's not downtown Austin. Pease Elementary is awesome, but it is a small school that is almost 100% transfer. There are 2 classes per grade in that school, so getting in there is certainly not guaranteed.
That's not even close to true. Hyde Park/North University feed into Lee and most of the kids go into Kealing magnet from there. High School is either LASA or McCallen. Everywhere west of Lamar from the river to at least 2222 has a good school pattern.
True. But creating housing units for high-budget people keeps these people from flooding into the existing affordable apartment units and pushing people out of them, thus preserving affordability. Yuppies are going to keep moving into Central Austin regardless. They will either move into new luxury housing units, or displace people from formerly affordable complexes that have been fancied up to meet a demand that is not met due to opposition of new apartment complexes.
I think this is what Komeht is referring to by "laws of supply and demand."
That's the claim, at least. It's a flawed analysis, however, because it misses the marginal increase in upper-class households who will choose high end downtown but would never choose mid-range spiffed up. As a result increasing supply won't lead to lower overall rents since the mix of tenants changes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
